File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0210, message 19


Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:22:41 -0400
From: John Mage <jmage-AT-panix.com>
Subject: BHA:Re: Description and Danto



Ian wrote:

 > Thanks for the responses.  I seem to be hearing not to jump when I hear
 >  'boo!' Danto said this in his Analytic Philosophy of History of
 > 1965 (it has been reissued recently).  I would like to look at it
 > more closely to see how stongly he might say this description just
 > IS history. The reason I suspect that is that he uses similar arguments
 >  for art. Art just is what the Art World (conceptually) decides to
 > call it, a la Warhol's Brillo Box.  So the ontic is strongly tied
 > to the conceptual (epistemological).

What you're looking for is in Danto's "Historical Language and
Historical Reality"in the Review of Metaphysics, written several years
after Analytic Philosophy of History. It was published together with the
core of APofH ("the integral text") in _Narration and Knowledge_ (1985),
  pp. 298-341.

Danto's fully aware of the link in the Practical Syllogism between
action and belief (hey, he taught it to me), is emphatically no
judgmental relativist, and in some sense a realist. He is also an
epistemic relativist (the past is always uncertain since it will be
redescribed in the future in the light of further developments). I don't
know what he has had to say on the difference between historical
narration and art (as types of representation) as they relate to action,
but am certain that he sees a difference and that if he has had
something to say that it would be very much worth paying attention to.

john mage






     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005